BESS & Grid Storage Developed 2024 · C12 4 min Recording available on request
BESS as Virtual Power Lines: Is Battery Storage a Viable Transmission Solution
Building new transmission lines is slow, expensive, and often blocked by permitting. That reality has pushed grid operators to ask whether battery storage can do part of the job instead. BESS as virtual power lines, known as virtual transmission in Australia and GridBooster in Germany, uses battery energy storage systems placed along the network to inject or absorb power and mimic line flows. This case examines whether a transmission system operator should choose batteries over conventional overhead lines.
A recording of the participant presentation is available. Submit your details and we'll email you the link.
How Virtual Transmission Works
The core idea is straightforward. When a generation source produces more than a line can carry, storage at the supply end absorbs the surplus; when the line has spare capacity, storage at the demand end discharges it back. In effect, a pair of assets working in tandem can behave like a transmission line, moving energy in time rather than only in space. Storage can also inject power downstream of a congested line to manage peak load, add capacity to existing lines, support grid stability when a line trips, and reduce curtailment of intermittent renewables. It can provide familiar reliability services too, including frequency response and reactive power, and it can support more rooftop solar at the distribution level by managing voltage.
Real-World Deployments
Virtual transmission is no longer theoretical. Projects around the world already total more than three gigawatts. A French utility has pursued a 40 MW virtual line to integrate renewables and optimise flows, and the German grid operates storage on the order of 1.3 GW for stability and lower network costs. A utility in Andhra Pradesh, India, uses storage between 250 and 500 MW to add transmission capacity, and the state of Victoria has proposed a single large asset to enable up to 250 MW of extra import at peak. In South Africa, a 343 MW storage project has been developed in remote areas with limited network access but close to large renewable plants, which is precisely the setting where new lines are hardest to justify.
The Economic and Risk Trade-Offs
The strongest argument for BESS is speed and flexibility. A 100 MW battery system can be deployed in roughly 12 to 14 months, against two to three years for an equivalent overhead line, and in South Africa new high-voltage lines can take 3 to 10 years from planning to commissioning. The footprint is smaller, the assets can be relocated, and batteries offer arbitrage revenue, since short-lived price peaks can rise tenfold or more, alongside backup power and frequency regulation. The obstacles are largely non-technical. Regulation in many markets is unclear about who owns virtual transmission assets and what revenue streams they can earn, which makes banks reluctant to finance them. There is no standard sizing for storage systems, software introduces cyber vulnerabilities, and past fire and explosion incidents, ethical concerns in lithium and cobalt mining, and supply chain delays for power conversion systems all weigh on the case.
What It Means for the Industry
For a transmission system operator, the decision turns on price and policy as much as physics. The case frames the central financial question as how much battery costs must fall for virtual power lines to undercut overhead lines, and where the higher risks of the model can be tolerated. In markets such as Australia, where the market operator is actively backing storage, the returns look more attractive than in regions with unresolved regulation. Batteries are unlikely to replace overhead lines wholesale. They are best seen as a fast, flexible tool for deferring upgrades, relieving congestion, and integrating renewables where traditional infrastructure is slow or impractical to build.
Key Takeaways
Virtual power lines use paired battery storage assets to mimic transmission flows, deferring or avoiding new line construction.
A 100 MW BESS can be deployed in about 12 to 14 months, versus two to three years for an equivalent overhead line and 3 to 10 years for new high-voltage lines in South Africa.
Global virtual transmission projects already exceed three gigawatts, with active examples in France, Germany, India, Australia, and South Africa.
Batteries add value through arbitrage, backup power, reactive power, and frequency regulation, and their footprint is roughly 80 percent smaller than overhead lines.
Unclear regulation on ownership and revenue streams is the biggest barrier, making project financing difficult.
Lack of standard system sizing, software vulnerabilities, fire risk, and supply chain delays add further caution.
The key financial question is how far battery prices must fall for virtual power lines to beat overhead lines in a given market.
Disclaimer: This case study was developed and presented by BatteryMBA participants as part of the Case Study Track. Views, analysis and recommendations are the authors' own. BatteryMBA does not take responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the content and it should not be relied upon as investment, engineering or legal advice.
This is the public summary, the full case study lives inside the programme
Every BatteryMBA cohort runs the Case Study Track: small teams build the full recommendation, backed by a written document and a live presentation, supported by the BatteryMBA team. Full case study documents are not shared outside the programme. programme.
BESS as virtual power linesbattery energy storage systemsvirtual transmissionoverhead transmission linesgrid congestiontransmission system operatorfrequency regulationrenewable integration
Ready to Lead the Battery Revolution?
Join 850+ alumni from 60+ countries who have transformed their careers with BatteryMBA.
C18 starts September 2026 · Rolling admissions, limited seats